spreads (2).gif

Are Councils in breach of the law for fluoridating water - have a read of this

The Beagle Editor, Your readers, Council and Councillors might be interested in our latest media release. when fools rush in …

In an extraordinary development in the public debate over the Fluoridation of public drinking water supplies by Australian councils, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (PMHC) has resolved to publicly release legal advice that it is in breach of Therapeutic Goods legislation by fluoridating the shire’s drinking water supplies.

The BVSRRA understands that the advice found that PMHC must obtain a federal therapeutic goods manufacturing license in order to obey the existing law & that hundreds of councils across Australia & other water supply authorities are in a similar position.

PMHC published the advice & has set a July 31st, 2019 deadline for the federal therapeutic goods regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to explain its enigmatic assertion that reticulated fluoridated drinking water is not federally regulated. If no compelling reasons are forthcoming (the BVSRRA understands that the legal advice suggests that there are none) then the council presumably will discontinue fluoridation in order to comply with current federal law.


The BVSRRA believes that the above situation is potentially catastrophic for Australia’s National Health & Medical Research Council & its federal & state health departments with those latter authorities apparently having deceived councils & the people concerning regulation of fluoridated drinking water for nearly three decades & could result in a wave of prosecutions that could imperil senior government officials, as well as councils & council officials who may have failed to adequately assess the risks of approving the fluoridation of public water supplies.

When Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) met to determine if it should approve the fluoridation of the shire's drinking water supplies in February last year, it was presented with a report recommending that it should do so.

The BVSRRA believes that councillors were not well served by that report, in particular as it was silent on the risks to council & ratepayers of potential future legal action should it proceed to fluoridate the shire’s drinking water supplies.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the superficial report tabled by council officials, Cr Griff recommended that council should defer its decision & pursue legal advice as to the appropriate course of action that council should pursue. Cr Dodds also urged council to exercise caution, citing council’s responsibility to respect the precautionary principle in respect of the issue.

Notwithstanding the many warnings it received & notwithstanding the failure of council officials to adequately address the risk issues involved, after what could be described as a "fiery meeting", all councillors, with the exception of Crs Griff, Dodds & Nadin (who was absent), voted in favour of proceeding with the fluoridation of the shire’s drinking water supplies.

The BVSRRA does not know if the fluoridation of the shire’s drinking water supplies is a good thing or a bad thing, any more than it thinks the shire’s public officials do.

However, in light of the legal advice publicly released by PMHC, the BVSRRA believes that BVSC should have heeded Cr Griff’s advice & should also be acting immediately to initiate an urgent public review of that legal advice & to assess the risks to council & ratepayers of its earlier rash decision.

John Richardson

Bega Valley Shire Residents & Ratepayers Association

#Council #Opinion #Bega

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available unless the author is known to the editor by way of a verified email address or by association.

Others who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name or Nom de plume for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts

Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.